Britain's Ambassador Mark Kent Sees Great Potential In The Proposed Thai-European Free Trade Area

[NCFC]

It's always amusing to see "European Union" and "UK and Europe", "UK and European firms".

Regarding "Our vision of Europe" I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey saying:

The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe. In fact the Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure the Common Market didn't work. That's why we went into it."

This sounded like a riddle to me. I asked him to explain further. And basically, his argument was as follows: Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Italians and Germans. [The Dutch rebellion against Philip II of Spain, the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War Ed.]

In other words, divide and rule. And the Foreign Office can see no reason to change when it has worked so well until now.

The Complete Yes Minister, Copyright © Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay

Ummm... Rubl, "Yes, Minister" was a comedy series on British TV. I hope you weren't thinking this is official British foreign policy or summat? It's meant to be taken 'toungue-in-cheek'.

[Time Traveller]

What is a government official going to say - that he doesn't see any potential ? With meaningless comments like this, governments worldwide are making themselves less and less relevent to real workers. Their only purpose it seems is to tax and serve the numerous welfare recipients.

[rubl]

It's always amusing to see "European Union" and "UK and Europe", "UK and European firms".

Regarding "Our vision of Europe" I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey saying:

The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe. In fact the Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure the Common Market didn't work. That's why we went into it."

This sounded like a riddle to me. I asked him to explain further. And basically, his argument was as follows: Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Italians and Germans. [The Dutch rebellion against Philip II of Spain, the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War Ed.]

In other words, divide and rule. And the Foreign Office can see no reason to change when it has worked so well until now.

The Complete Yes Minister, Copyright © Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay

Ummm... Rubl, "Yes, Minister" was a comedy series on British TV. I hope you weren't thinking this is official British foreign policy or summat? It's meant to be taken 'toungue-in-cheek'.

By Jove, if only I'd known I'd quoted something else!

"The Roman Conquest was, however, a Good Thing, since the Britons were only natives at that time."

1066 And All That, © 1930 Sellar, WC & Yeatman, RJ

Edited April 21, 2013 by rubl

[kimamey]

It's always amusing to see "European Union" and "UK and Europe", "UK and European firms".

Regarding "Our vision of Europe" I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey saying:

The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe. In fact the Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure the Common Market didn't work. That's why we went into it."

This sounded like a riddle to me. I asked him to explain further. And basically, his argument was as follows: Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Italians and Germans. [The Dutch rebellion against Philip II of Spain, the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War Ed.]

In other words, divide and rule. And the Foreign Office can see no reason to change when it has worked so well until now.

The Complete Yes Minister, Copyright © Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay

Ummm... Rubl, "Yes, Minister" was a comedy series on British TV. I hope you weren't thinking this is official British foreign policy or summat? It's meant to be taken 'toungue-in-cheek'.

Are you sure?

[thhMan]

I think the ambassador needs to spend some time here before saying too much.

He will find out he can neither buy land, own a business outright or have the same rights as the locals have.

Then there is the paying of "fees" to every man and his dog just to get something done.

Free trade.. HA !

[davejones]

Your HE Mark Kent, since when has the UK ever worried about consumers? A look into our own economy and leadership shows that the UK is only involved in a policy of robbing the poor to feed the rich! We can not implement equality at home so, I'm quite sure we really don't care about Asia!

The UK has strong consumer laws and lots of competition that results in consumers getting lower prices. The UK does not rob the poor. Poor UK people are mostly poor because they're too lazy to do something about their lives. I've made lots of positive suggestions to poor people I know in the UK, but the fact is that they just can't be bothered to make any effort at all. They expect everything for free.

So please explain which poor people you think have been robbed. You are talking complete <deleted>.

wow! did you have to get up early to get the best view at Thatchers funeral ? !,... people like you that label all poor people the same are the people we could all do without , "im alright jack" , and "i am considerably more clever than you" co's " i have the money to prove it " , ..........i will tell you what poor people have been robbed ,.. the ones paying the price for a screwed banking industry , THE POOR ! do you think the knock on' affect of austerity measures hurts the rich ?? when amazon,EDF, jimmy carr and anyone else rich enough to avoid paying what they should to sustain a healthy social system for those less fortunate than themselves , do you think it hurts other rich people or the poor ? , the fact that there are 1m jobs for 3m unemployed is also the fault of the poor right ?and they should create jobs for themselves too, why are they so lazy ?cos they have the power to control the economy too right ?, lets all blame the poor , the very people who fought to get every freedom you now have privilege of , not the oppressive rich who would still be paying wages that also needed kids to work to provide enough food ,..............i would rather be poor than a selfish ignoramus . I bet you've never even picked up a shovel and think hard work is sitting on your fat arse all day at a PC and that everyone should have rich parents that afford them a good education , which unfortunately has been wasted on you .

I didn't say that all poor people were lazy. I said they mostly were. I know plenty of them, and it's very rare for them to want to do anything about it other than complain. Just like you are saying, they always think it's some else's fault. So it's Thatcher's fault, or the banker's fault or whatever. Complete <deleted>. The vast majority who work hard still get on in life even when things go wrong. The ones that blame others will never change because it's impossible if you think the reason they're poor is because of someone else. It's people like you that do poor people a disservice by telling them that they aren't to blame. How the hell are they supposed to improve themselves when people like you keep telling them it's someone else's fault. I know exactly what many poor people are like - lazy.

None of them fought for me. They were probably too lazy to get out of bed - unless it was giro day.

Why would I need to pick up a shovel? I don't have any holes to dig. I'll leave that to you. Will probably make you feel good knowing you've done some physical work.

Edited April 22, 2013 by davejones

[NCFC]

It's always amusing to see "European Union" and "UK and Europe", "UK and European firms".

Regarding "Our vision of Europe" I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey saying:

The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe. In fact the Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure the Common Market didn't work. That's why we went into it."

This sounded like a riddle to me. I asked him to explain further. And basically, his argument was as follows: Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Italians and Germans. [The Dutch rebellion against Philip II of Spain, the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War Ed.]

In other words, divide and rule. And the Foreign Office can see no reason to change when it has worked so well until now.

The Complete Yes Minister, Copyright © Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay

Ummm... Rubl, "Yes, Minister" was a comedy series on British TV. I hope you weren't thinking this is official British foreign policy or summat? It's meant to be taken 'toungue-in-cheek'.

By Jove, if only I'd known I'd quoted something else!

"The Roman Conquest was, however, a Good Thing, since the Britons were only natives at that time."

1066 And All That, © 1930 Sellar, WC & Yeatman, RJ

lol - nice one!

Now you must try 'Adolf Hitler, my part in his downfall', by Spike Milligan. Now that one is true!